United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden - <AUTHOR> https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/united-states-files-civil-lawsuit-against-edward-snowden <comment><USER2> This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.

The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.

This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.

<comment><USER3> Rightly or wrongly, that is not a part of the SF86 form when one applies for a clearance.

The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place.

The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.

<comment><USER4> I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech.

The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal.

One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing.

Someone else responds with what is _legal_ : the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.

Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right.

Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral.

Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.

<comment><USER6> There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.

<comment><USER7> Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying?

The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity.

Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.

<comment><USER8> There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's _immoral_ to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim made up thread.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for clarifying. It seems I was wrong in my understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _"The United States' lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations."_

What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he didn't, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages. By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.

They're basically saying "he doesn't actually reveal anything problematic, we just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don't like him and we can."

<comment><USER10> No, it sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract lawsuit.

As alleged, Snowden signed a contract where he agreed to do certain things, X, for the right to do Y. He did Y but then didn't do X. And now the counterparty is suing for damages under the contract.

The US government has limited power to stop publication, so all Snowden had to due was submit the manuscript for review, _reject any requested changes_ , and then go ahead and publish the book in its original form.

<comment><USER11> His NDA included USG restrictions on what he could publish, if he didn't accept the changes the outcome would be the same.

NDA available via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966)

<comment><USER10> With respect to confidential information only...

It helps to actual read the NDAs and not just blindly cite to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day, restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA.

These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.

<comment><USER13> I strongly agree. Since Snowden himself is presumably in Russia, the U.S. government is effectively attempting economic sanctions against him. Their method is to scare anyone that might send him money with a lawsuit.

<comment><USER14> He's just released a book, I wonder how it is set up, can he earn the money from it or not?

<comment><USER15> If he loses the lawsuit, no (the money goes to a trust for the USG).

It's possible that Macmillan paid him an advance and so he already has the money. I don't know if the feds can do much in that case.

<comment><USER16> This is indeed the case, the rumoured advance was around $100k.

Also, it's entirely possible that there will be ways for the publisher to never repatriate profits from sales abroad and/or translations.

This is just petty stuff from petty bureaucrats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I bought the book, and I hereby commit to donating a large multiple of the price to an appropriate charity or Snowden himself if they win this suit.

<comment><USER18> I hope the government realizes how much they're pissing everyone off by violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it

<comment><USER19> > how much they're pissing everyone

I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.

If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.

Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.

<comment><USER20> > Germany has already forgotten that it seems.

No, Germany hasn't forgotten. The US trying to listen Merkel's phone and vice versa is expected.

[https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german- intellig...](https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence- also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Disclaimer: I'm just a ingorant non-lawyer non-american.

Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?

<comment><USER22> Whistleblower laws allow you to blow the whistle _to a government agency_ , not to the press or the public in general.

<comment><USER23> Courts have thrown out NDAs before because they were unreasonable or unconscionable - Snowden would argue that he signed an NDA under the pretense that the government was behaving according to its' own laws, and that the NDA should be thrown out because that reasonable expectation was violated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Nobody in this discussion seems to have mentioned the word "advance". Snowden has already been paid for this book, and the advance will have been negotiated with the expectation that it will be difficult to pay any additional royalties.

Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.

<comment><USER25> Curiously since Snowden is a US citizen he'll have to file & pay taxes on that income.

<comment><USER26> Or what? The US will send him to jail?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit?

I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.

Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?

<comment><USER28> There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing intelligence info and violating his NDA.

From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden's failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non- disclosure agreements. "

<comment><USER27> If I buy the book, does that make me a criminal accessory? Or guilty of the receipt of stolen property (information)?

<comment><USER28> "The United States' lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record."

So presumably not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.

<comment><USER30> The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor.

However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result. The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to keep us safe was hampered.

Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change, because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people, exactly zilch has changed since 2013.

<comment><USER31> You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American hero.

<comment><USER30> You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.

<comment><USER32> That's like someone being stalked by a police officer being told to call the police

<comment><USER30> It's more along the lines of, and the maturity required to understand that, there are two sides to every story and the people on the "other side" are human beings, too, and in fact, not your enemy. Average Americans most of them, believe it or not. Chances are some of them have been your friend, neighbor, church member, frat bro/sorority sis, etc.

<comment><USER16> A lot of (or even most) members of totalitarian organisations are "average X", good neighbours, church members etc etc.

I'd suggest to read some Arendt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This lawsuit is mostly about paragraph five of the NDA:

> 5\. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, > remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result > from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information > not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

[https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information- non...](https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/classified-information- nondisclosure-agreement-0)

Download SF312-13.pdf.

<comment><USER34> Meanwhile a sitting US President can profit from royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from foreigners and diplomats renting hotel rooms and golf courses owned (not divested) by same President and his immediate family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Somehow I doubt the US government is after a few dollars from his book sales. It is more of a message to anyone trying to publish "unapproved" material in the future - don't do it or we will make your life hell.

</comment><comment><USER36> This seems like targeted harassment. Are those NDA's even valid anymore?

<comment><USER37> Having known other people who have worked for the NSA, they've had to clear any publications with them before publishing (eg, academic papers in a field related to their work, resumes describing work done at the NSA, etc).

My understanding is they're enforcable for the rest of your life.

I'd expect to see this if anybody published a book without clearance. It's only newsworthy because it's Snowden.

<comment><USER36> This all makes sense to me. I share your same expectations.

Now, I'd also expect Snowden to make sure he is not breaching those NDA's. Afaik, he is not one to make these types of mistakes. Looking forward to his response.

<comment><USER38> It doesn't matter how careful he pays attention to his NDAs. He's required to get approval before he publishes. No approval, no publication. Publish anyway, and you're in breach of contract, even if the content would have been approved in the fist place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Something that never made sense to me in the Snowden case is how any of this works in face of whistleblower protection laws in USA.

According to Wikipedia, the US offers these legal protections:

> Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech > for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are > protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee > or applicant reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or > regulation, or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of > authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

But when Snowden blew the whistle on 3-letter agencies, all that goes out the window? Does the government not follow its own laws?

<comment><USER40> In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law covering the NSA did not apply to him.

<comment><USER41> 95% of what we think as "Federal workers" are in fact contractors.

Look no further than Accenture and similar. So sure, there's whistleblower laws. But they're in name only, with no real power for those that work with fed stuff in day to day operations.

<comment><USER42> That is so convenient, isn't it? The government don't need to follow the law which suppose to protect the whistleblowers.

<comment><USER41> It's more complicated than that, sadly.

A lot of contractors are small outfits that "won" contracts because the contract request was tailored for them. In the fed system, your max cap of what you can make wage-wise, is limited by Congress.

The way around that is not to get paid wages, but becoming a contractor that takes contracts at _MUCH_ higher than the wages would ever be. So it becomes a form of its own version of corruption of "I want to hire and pay these people appropriately but im unable to legally so I'll create a contract only they can fulfill." But the corruption itself is rooted with price controls in Congress.

But one of the side effects is that they're "not working for the govt, but for the company" and the company is working for the govt. It also means no govt pension, or any of the perks for working directly for the govt. And well, contractors get none of the protections of reporting wrong-doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This will only attract more attention to him and what he has to say, won't it? If non-tech people did forget about him, now they will recall and wonder what came of all this.

<comment><USER44> Unfortunately, many people are just subservient to authority. Einstein said of this sort of thing when authorities attack liberty and justice:

>Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

US courts even already ruled what Snowden revealed is unconstitutional. Howevet, it's unlikely he will unanimously be seen as a hero until he has the muscle in the world standing behind him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is going to go pretty much like it went for Frank Snepp and "Decent Interval", see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Snepp)

<comment><USER46> I was thinking about the case of the Navy SEAL who wrote about the UBL raid[0]. Same outcome- lots of surrendered money...

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Easy_Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Easy_Day)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> If you're afraid that the US government and not Edward Snowden will receive the proceeds of the book you purchase, you can also make a donation to Ed's legal defense fund at

[https://edwardsnowden.com/en/donate/](https://edwardsnowden.com/en/donate/)

<comment><USER48> He should give it away for free with a strongly encouraged donation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Interesting timing. Just a couple of days ago, Snowden said he was hoping France would grant him asylum.

<comment><USER50> His book came out today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal" lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)

<comment><USER52> "The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden's book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States' claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States."

This is the actual goal here.

<comment><USER53> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_(intelligence_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_\(intelligence_officer\))

>Shaffer published memoirs of his time as a reports officer in Afghanistan in book titled Operation Dark Heart. Shaffer claims that the Defense Department attempted to preserve secrecy of revelations made by the book, by buying up and destroying all 10,000 copies of the book's first, uncensored run, before allowing for the release of a second, censored printing. Only Shaffer himself has offered this version of events, which are not in keeping with Department of Defense policies on the public release of sensitive information in print.

.

Yes, if the goal was to censor the book, the US would have tried to destroy all copies of it.

<comment><USER54> That makes no logical sense in the age of ebooks. No matter how many copies of the ebook version they buy, the publisher could sell more to anyone who wants to buy one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Somebody tell the Donald that Snowden stood up to Obama era policy.

<comment><USER56> How can he stop this without inviting criticisms of being a Russian asset or some such accusation?

<comment><USER57> The criticisms will occur at this point no matter what he does. I would actually bet he welcomes the talk as a distraction from his easy to prosecute crimes.

<comment><USER58> What crimes has Donald committed?

<comment><USER59> Campaign finance violations (his personal lawyer is currently sitting in jail for an illegal campaign contribution he carried out at the direction of Donald trump). Obstruction of justice is pretty well documented in the mueller report. Those are just the obvious ones

<comment><USER58> How is obstruction of justice well documented in the mueller report?

Honestly, there's more ground for obstruction of justice charges against Trudeau for his role in the SNC-Lavalin scandal than anything I've seen for Trump.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is such a pathetic move it just has me belly laughing. NDA violation. No kidding? :D

This is up there with Al Capone being taken down for tax evasion instead of racketeering.

Snowden just so totally out manoeuvred the CIA they'll be butt hurt for decades.

</comment><comment><USER61> Do the worlds proceeds have to go through the US publisher (Metropolitan Books) or can the proceeds of books sold here in Europe go to Snowden? For example letting a European publisher sell the book in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER62> These guys sure do know how to sell a book.

<comment><USER63> The best publicity money can buy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The DOJ pushing their case against Snowden's potential book profits nicely reminds everyone about the US government's illegal surveillance programs and simultaneously helps promote the book.

If I were Macmillan I'd consider not having any profits from it by simply donating all the proceeds from Snowden's book to the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a non-profit organization.

Kinda like when they demanded the cryptokeys to Lavabit but found instead it had gone out of business.

</comment><comment><USER64> Edward Snowden should setup a monero wallet and e-mail the book upon payment or better yet for donations. I would love to send him some money at the end of the year.

</comment><comment><USER65> This just makes me more likely to read the book

</comment><comment><USER66> Suggested slight amendment to the book: a disclosure of the royalties amount per copy and a bitcoin address.

</comment><comment><USER67> How small.

</comment><comment><USER68> Jesus, who the fuck cares about what Snowden released. I am more sad people aren't way up in arms about WHAT WE LEARNED. (Yes, I understand that sentence makes itself not make sense, but you get my point. Rushed and on mobile, but this pissed me off.)

Thank you Snowden, and fuck you U.S. Government.

\- A U.S. Citizen

<comment><USER69> Snowden "...carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over"

What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best serves public interest is not in the hands of ONE person. That's why we care about what was released.

While a portion of the leaked documents might positively benefit society, who is to say the net benefit in total was positive? Call me naive but I'm unable to make the call either way, even after having read through the revelations.

Leaking that info was sure audacious but not worthy of a get-out-of-jail free card or a thank you IMO.

<comment><USER70> Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution. He tried to stop gross constitutional violations from within using the official processes and was ignored. He is the greatest American hero of our era for sacrificing his own freedom to protect the nation.

The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of the constitution is audacious and they should be imprisoned for treason. The NSA bosses who actively worked to craft these illegal plans deserve the most severe legal punishments available.

<comment><USER71> > Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution

This feels like one of those things that Americans say, that may not be true. Is this actually true? Do NSA employees state such an oath? Is defense of the constitution more important than defense of the nation if the two are in conflict?

Happy to be persuaded that this is true, but feels pretty glib to a non- American.

<comment><USER72> It is not true. This is something I had to learn from people that have been in high-level roles in government. I will start with the history and purpose of constitutions.

General guidelines to organize and plan governments around have existed since time immemorial. What makes modern constitutions special is that it specifies the idea of _popular sovereignty_ , that it is the entirety of the population of a nation that provides the _legitimacy_ for the state.

The idea originated amidst the Enlightenment period of the 17-1800s. Monarchy was where, generally speaking, legitimacy derived ultimately from the divinity of the ruler, and was passed down through their descendants. Popular sovereignty and the republican form of government that enshrined it had to be evolved over hundreds of years, the Dutch constitution being a pillar of the system. The US Constitution was a virtual carbon copy of the Dutch one.

One of the questions grappled with in the transition from monarchy to republic was, what happens when the government fails to exercise authority due to exigent circumstances? This question led to the modern concept of the "state of emergency" in which the government reverts to a more primitive form. It was also noted that protecting the republic required extra-legal powers, because republican forms of government are relatively easy to subvert.

When states of emergency arise, the constitution is set aside by the executive branch of government until order is restored. No elections are held, power rests in the hands of the military.

This is but one of the ways in which constitutions cannot be seen as the ultimate arbiters of the organization of society. If society _can 't_ protect itself, then somebody must protect society.

Now we can deal with the matter of intelligence services. Intelligence services were once crucial to the functioning of pre-republican states. They were called the secret police, the apparatus of government that takes care of the tasks that need to be done by the state but are too unsavory for the public to know about.

It is inevitable that the need for these tasks arise. This comment is already too long for me to give and flesh out examples. The biggest issue that needs dealing with is revolution, which is a violent event that we usually think of as originating from grassroots populism, but is also just as easily planned and carried out by small groups that can't be seen as the instrumentation of popular sovereignty. Discovering and dealing with these national threats is part of the purview of intelligence services. The alternative to secret police is endless revolutions of the kind seen by Latin America during the late 20th century.

Another function that must be dealt with is the exploration and research of matters too unsavory for the public to deal with, as these things can carry serious consequences for public safety. I have learned recently that the CIA has carried on with experiments carried out by the Nazis. This is but one example.

The people in national intelligence organizations see themselves as guardians of the people, and empowered with ultimate authority to do that. Many countries, most notably Eastern European ones, oscillate between secret-police control and a more feudal kind of organization. One system you might study is Russia's current system of tributary taxation.

Keeping state secrets secret is the true foundation of any national security functionary, as extremely serious consequences could theoretically result. And when you get to the scale of government, theoretically possible means you have to do a study to determine how many times and where it's actually happened, and to come up with plans for dealing with it when the theory finds manifestation

The main resource that has taught me this traditional point of view believes that Snowden is a bloody traitor and should be executed. This is opinion he offered freely on Quora, with no respect given to the popular view of Snowden as a hero. As far as he's concerned, Snowden needs to serve as an example, he absolutely has to die, even if he's revealed some atrocities and secret information.

This person has also revealed vast amounts of information that has been declassified, but still shows mind-blowing inadequacy of anything other than highly trained government functionaries to deal with the heavy weight of exercising legitimate force. The idea I think he's conveying is that while Snowden's revelations might be shocking and awful, his similar revelations cut to the meat of why such things are needed.

As far as this point of view is concerned, atrocities and subversion of popular sovereignty is business as usual in the government sphere, revealing them does society no good. They've always happened, they're always happening, let the people trained to deal with them do their jobs, just like any sphere of human org, the org learns how to do their jobs better over time.

We have dealt with the traditional view of how 'secret' organizations derive their legitimacy, now I will offer my speculation as to how to think about how to move forward.

I believe Edward Snowden represents a change in the ability of society to countenance the full weight of what humans are capable of. Consciousness is being raised in the human race across the board, and the old problems that gave rise to intelligence apparatus in the past are no longer relevant.

As a result, changes need to be made in how society is planned. The old ways of organizing society are still valid, they still work, and they will continue to work. The US government will happily kangaroo court Snowden as cruelly as they can if they ever get their hands on him. And high level government functionaries will say and believe that he deserves it.

Because what Snowden ultimately embodies, to this point of view, is the same kind of thought that leads to endless, pointless revolution, the idea that humanity cannot overcome its basic nature, and so will always require highly- trained operatives and apparatus to deal with it in secret like it needs to be dealt with.

This has to fundamentally be outside of the existing legal system and constitution, which concerns itself with limiting the powers of government so as to facilitate commerce and public expression, but is woefully inadequate to deal with the protection of that society. Secrecy is an essential tool, to be wielded cautiously and judiciously. The government is the only entity that reserves the right to compel labor other than overtly criminal organizations like organized crime.

We may demand changes in how secret government operations are conducted, but it may never come to pass that secrecy is totally eliminated from government. I have a greater appreciation for this mindset now than I used to, though I still hope that we can find a way to stop ridiculousness like the MKULTRA project.

<comment><USER70> I fundamentally disagree that secrecy is the foundation of national security.

Journalists have revealed state secrets countless times, and over and over the secret was kept to hide unjustifiable actions of government officials violating their oath of office and taking actions which harm national interests.

There is a role for keeping certain information temporarily secret (i.e. don't publish where the active missile silos are, current positions of US troops), but our government should not be in the business of torture, illegal murder, faking suicides, industrial sabotage, domestic propaganda, illegal surveillance, blackmail, sexual extortion... long list of evil things the clandestine services engage in.

We know US intelligence has engaged in these behaviors through our nations history. It seems naive to believe they've never used these methods against our own political leaders to consolidate power and avoid the appropriate legal consequences for their malfeasances. We have no assurance that the system for oversight has not been wholly captured.

All of these thing make our nation more vulnerable (it justifies other countries doing it to us) and we should not tolerate govt spooks feeling they have carte blanche to take immoral and illegal actions to preserve their own self interest. We are the most powerful nation in the world, we can do better, and it truly saddens me that you think these evils are necessary.

<comment><USER72> The state of journalism in any particular country is a very good cue to start with when trying to figure out the exact level of civilization present. Journalists not only have to be authorized by states to operate, but they must also be protected by those same states. This is the case in most countries except for exceedingly advanced ones, such as the US and most of Europe, where they can be allowed a great deal of autonomy.

<comment><USER70> If quality of journalism is a reasonable proxy for the the civility of a society, doesn't it logically follow that government secrecy and persecution of journalists are forces that destroy civility?

<comment><USER72> Yes, it represents a downslide back towards more primitive forms of government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I will give some information of what other countries have done in similar situations:

\- German Constitution: Article 10 [Privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications] [https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic- law-...](https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/chancellor/basic-law-470510)

If you wanted to extend it into modern terminology, it would probably clearly specify communication over wire/radio, digital fingerprints, records, storage, including remote / cloud storage.

\- Switzerland: 2016 Swiss Popular Initiative on federal intelligence law, that passed (65.5%): [https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/201609...](https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20160925/intelligence- service-act.html), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJCCpp-- oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJCCpp--oM) (Hit CC for closed captions, and the cog to translate to your language)

Based on this thread, it seems many have a subjective right to privacy they'd expect represented at the constitutional level, like Germany. They'd also like more transparency explaining who/what/where/why/how in regards to the authorizations regarding national security, like Switzerland.

One more thing: while this is generally consumer-related, you may be generally interested in GDPR: [https://eugdpr.org/](https://eugdpr.org/)

But these are just part of the nice things. When people mention US constitution and rights, Europeans have vastly more rights and protections, in many respects.

\- China, Xinjiang, elsewhere: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5LnY21Hgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ5LnY21Hgc), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY)

This is a place where culturally there's less concern about surveillance.

<comment><USER74> I doubt that the situation in Germany is considerably better than in the US. The BND has explicitly being granted the right to snoop at DECIX indiscriminate of the origin. Various groups (eg. laywers) have tried to challenge this and where denied with the reasoning that they cannot prove that they are affected (no legal standing). As well there is legislation proposed or under way which would grant the Verfassungsschutz (German internal intelligence) the right to implant trojans (Bundestrojaner). All ruling parties violate the constitution in a regular way as evidenced by the rulings of the constitutional court.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> The thing about whistleblowing is that it's a gamble that exposure will bring repentance.

</comment><comment><USER76> TLDR; If you share the many dirty secrets of your employer, and then write a tell-all book about them. Your employer will sue you for breach of NDA.

This is especially true if your employer is The USA(NSA/CIA) and your last name is Snowden.

The briefing is largely about how the US wants to stop Snowden from collecting proceeds from the book, and how he has violated his NDA by not letting them preview a pre-published draft.

</comment><comment><USER77> For what then? Disgusting reality.

</comment><comment><USER78> So who got the PDF link then?

</comment><comment><USER79> Couldn't snowden just bypass this by accepting cryptocurrency donations?

</comment><comment><USER80> > government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his > failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of > his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations.

You aint gonna get rich off this, boy. If Snowden would sell the book online via Bitcoin and then have it shipped from wherever to the customers. How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against him??

<comment><USER81> > How would they seize that money from him even if they got a judgment against > him??

They wouldn't. But in the event he ever has assets they can touch they have an enforceable judgment against those assets. (For example, if he ever chose to hire a US attorney for any reason, they government could sue the attorney for any amounts paid to them)

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Nice to see Trump keeping SOME of Obama's projects alive.

</comment><comment><USER83> classic Trump. Of course he wants to enforce the NDA...

<comment><USER84> Well, this is a terribly nonconstructive way to start a conversation.

If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.

<comment><USER85> > If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute > more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined.

It should be noted that "all prior POTUS' combined" winds up being _four_ prosecutions since 1945 prior to Obama. Double of nearly-zero is still nearly- zero.

[https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...](https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake- tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/)

<comment><USER84> Seven of the eleven prosecutions under the act since its passing in 1917. It was intended to be a rare power. We shouldn't try to diminish that.

That administration also grossly misused their Section 702 powers passed with the 2008 FISA ammendments as well. [https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa- section-702...](https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa- section-702-compliance-violations/)

<comment><USER85> > It was intended to be a rare power.

I'm making the case that less than one a year in a population of 300+ million is, indeed, rare.

<comment><USER84> 300 million people don't work in a capacity where they could even be tried under the Espionage Act.

Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not represent our interests.

We should have impeached him for it.

<comment><USER85> Let's be clear, then: you're arguing it should be a _nonexistent_ power, not a rare one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> He's broken the law in more than one ways. Regardless of his motives, he broke the law. We can't expect to hold Trump or anyone else accountable if we cannot hold responsible those who are entrusted to protect confidential information.

<comment><USER32> Yes, lets all blindly follow the will of the government without thinking for ourselves and in that way the government will be held accountable... oh wait. Can you name any major movements that created change without breaking a single law?

Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example

<comment><USER66> > Rosa parks not sitting on the back of the bus is a great example

Not that great an example. The only reason you know her name is because of her arrest and the lawsuit that followed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Parks_arrest_and_bus_boycott)

Which - fortunately - does not apply to Snowden.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this comment; it supports my argument

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Proceeds from treason should be seized.

</comment><comment><USER88> .

<comment><USER89> It's disrespectful to the first ammendment to conflate it with astroturfing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I was wondering if they were going to try this.

</comment><comment><USER91> Well, guess I'll wait to see how this turns out before buying the book, I wouldn't want to hand one more penny than necessary to these .gov ghouls.

If the government prevails in the lawsuit hopefully Snowden will offer an e-book for purchase with cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER63> The information hurts more than the money helps.

<comment><USER91> For sure, but as the meme says, why not both?

<comment><USER63> Proportion.

The money is de minmus. There's the principle, but the vastly greater principle is learning and sharing Snowden's message.

I'm hoping there's a content liberation clause in Snowden's contract with Macmillan to make the book freely available. Given the efficiency of current samizdat distribution sites, that would largely be a formality. It would be welcome all the same.

The effective prohibition on compensated publishing (both Snowden and Macmillan would apparently be enjoined, though again, the case for Macmillan to cover its editing, printing, and distribution expenses might have legs) _used_ to be effective at blocking the spread of information. That need no longer be the case.

If the NSA's excercise of its contract terms serves to _both_ publicise _and_ liberate the content, their own emasculation mechanism is emasculated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> This is...good for Bitcoin?

<comment><USER93> Oh yeah

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> This makes the US government look like petty idiots. As is the government wasn't already the laughingstock of the entire world. They can't even arrest Snowden (not that they should) and now they want to bankrupt him. I assume Snowden would publish this book with a publisher that's not US based but I don't know the details. Hopefully it doesn't get a penny, this criminal government that forced him into exile.

<comment><USER95> It was published by Macmillan, which has US offices and subsidiaries. They do fall under US jurisdiction and will likely comply with US courts.

<comment><USER96> If they don't it will be quite interesting, but in reading the book, I don't think his motivations were financial.

Dude is holed up in middle of nowhere totally uncertain of his future and wants to make sure this chapter, his chapter, of history is preserved from his POV.

<comment><USER97> He could have released it as a free pdf. In fact, he can still do this (unless his publisher own it now.)

<comment><USER63> If he were clever he'd have negotiated an escape clause for this contingency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.)

It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing the better results in the advancement of types of people everywhere. Myself included!

Asymmetry of information has overrun the optimum curves of received value for all peoples. Now there must be more clarity amidst those elites to reform their appetites/waste/projected powers, lest they get priced-out by their own over-runs.

A way of saying: evil loses. Nature and dignity are neutral. These methods are not. They break the system that keeps balance, so WHY a unique ruling matters a great deal more than a blanket pronouncement OR precedent- setting to avoid getting caught in abuses-of-trust.

Specifically, abuses of trust(s) by knowing authority generates enormous destructive potential in spirit-of-the-law violations.

<comment><USER99> I did not understand any of that.

<comment><USER100> Let me translate

 _> This is yet another way to avoid exposing real circumstances AND reap funds to continue black-budget trafficking operations (precedent setting [see DanielBMarkham's assessment], plus avoiding certain due process rights.)_

The government will make an example of him to deter others, and use the winnings from the lawsuit to fund more misdeeds. And a civil proceeding has lower standards/Constitutional protections than a criminal trial.

 _> It will not succeed because these measures stand between everyone who has not had their circumstances optimized by bad, withholding leadership.. preventing the better results in the advancement of types of people everywhere. Myself included!_

The elites have set up a system that benefits themselves to the detriment of many other classes of people. It's not sustainable.

 _> Asymmetry of information has overrun the optimum curves of received value for all peoples. Now there must be more clarity amidst those elites to reform their appetites/waste/projected powers, lest they get priced-out by their own over-runs._

Elites maintain power in part by knowing more about what is, and what is coming, than anyone else. But if they take too much advantage of it, they will get voted/run out of government by the people who are being unjustly treated.

 _> A way of saying: evil loses. Nature and dignity are neutral. These methods are not. They break the system that keeps balance, so WHY a unique ruling matters a great deal more than a blanket pronouncement OR precedent- setting to avoid getting caught in abuses-of-trust._

Evil isn't sustainable, truth prevails. But the elites try hard to keep the wool over people's eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> I think there is reason to believe that Snowden is a blackops story. A guy making six figures and working remotely in Hawaii as an NSA contractor, somehow extracts tons of critical data and then one day decides he has a moral compass and gives it to reporters at The Guardian and Der Spegiel? Then he goes and hangs out in Russia and his smokin hot girlfriend says she wants to go be with him.

We should not be surprised that in 30 years, declassified documents show this whole thing was orchestrated to show Americans don't actually care at all about domestic spying.

<comment><USER102> Yeah except the programs he unveiled are real, the source code has been leaked to the internet, they have billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees.

But yes, surely it's all fake.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to turn $1,000 into $10,000 in a relatively short period of time? - <AUTHOR>

I want to hear your ideas. Short as in less than 6 months, which I think is appropriate. <comment><USER2> Buy a lawn mower and an old truck for under a grand. Go around your neighborhood and offer to mow lawns for $50 1 time per month or more. Stop once you have 33 customers. Mow lawns everyday for 6 months.

50x33=1650x6=9,900. minimum. Hire help at $25 a lawn to scale.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget to factor in the cost of fuel for the truck and the lawn mower, as well as maintenance and any government fees. Otherwise, I like your plan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Gambling. Amounts of this magnitude can be easily obtained in widely available gambling houses, and it is 100% legal.

Of course, the downside is that the method is note completely reliable. To maximize your odds of success avoid games of skill or games with numerous independent probabilities. For instance, stopping by a Las Vegas casino and putting down all $1000 on 3 numbers on a roulette wheel would pay out 11:1 (thus achieving your objective with $1000 left over) and has a 8.82% chance of success.

Of course, it has a 91.2% chance of FAILURE... but I am guessing nearly all other options would be worse.

<comment><USER5> Go to the casino, bet it all on black (50/50 for $2000), then bet it all on red (25% for $4000), then bet on 1st 3rd 1-12 (8.33%), you'll end up with $2000 to play sic-bo with. Good luck!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Buy cocaine and sell it to kids at the college's gates.

<comment><USER7> I almost down-voted this because it's illegal and I thought it was a sarcastic remark, but then I thought about it some more and, aside from working at a job or doing consulting, it sounds like one of the few realistic ways to do what you want to do. The downside risk is obviously pretty huge though - I wouldn't recommend it.

<comment><USER8> how does one downvote?

<comment><USER9> Only adults can downvote!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Use the first $1000 to live while you find a decent job, then work for 6 months.

<comment><AUTHOR> _on the side_ , I will add.

<comment><USER10> Then you'll need something nice and risky if you want that kind of ROI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If there was a magical way of doing this don't you think everyone would???

Plus even if you did have a great idea for a start up (which I am guessing you don't) most fail.

Anyway, what are your skills? We can't give you much advice without that info - otherwise yes, the illegal is the only way to go... but seriously, what can you do? What could you normally earn in the open market? What are your costs? Do you want to have earnt 10k, or have 10k cash in hand? Can you live on next to nothing? Or will you need to earn 20 or 30k in that time?

</comment><comment><USER12> Put the money into a brokerage account (I would do optionshouse.com) and purchase Call options for a biotech company with impending FDA approval.

THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO:

Consider ARNA Jan 11 calls (4 strike). Currently at ~1.55 The stock will need to be around 15-16 for you to earn 10x.

The FDA decision should be around October 22, 2010

If they are denied you lose all. If they are approved, you have a chance to be pretty close to 10 bagger

 __Everyone DO YOUR DD before investing __

<comment><USER13> > If they are denied you lose all.

I can vouch for this from a personal (similar) experience: [http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SSS.V&t=3m](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SSS.V&t=3m)

You don't even need FDA rejection to lose your shirt, in this case it was an unprecedented (compared to prior trials) improvement of patients in the placebo control group.

Sometimes in investing it seems that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

<comment><USER12> This is certainly true. There are many, many risks. Without getting into too much detail:

\- delay (past Jan 11 expiration) \- denial \- partial approval

All possible outcomes that would wipe out the $1,000.

I would still consider this option superior to gambling or any illegal activities -- but that is a personal choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Two dumb, easy ways:

1\. Go to Vegas, make some big bets. You'll probably lose it all, but you might not.

2\. Lever up and bet on stock options. You'll probably lose it all, but you might not.

And one smart way:

3\. Go find a client who needs a website built. Charge him $9000 to do it, and finish within 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER15> Bet big on the world cup - <http://smarkets.com/sport/football/world-cup-2010>

</comment><comment><USER16> Could try finding consult/contract work.

</comment><comment><USER17> why do random versions of how to turn $x into $y in z time seem to be the most common Ask HN of late?

<comment><USER18> Because people want something for nothing. It's annoying though. If there was an easy and reliable way to get 10,000 from 1,000, we'd do it over and over and all be millionaires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Drug dealing.</comment>


A tiling window manager written in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Kintaro/wtftw <comment><USER2> I find it funny that it seems like any conversation about a particular tiling window manager will eventually turn into a conversations about _window managers_ in general.

So to continue the trend, I used to use tiling wm's until I learned about Emacs. Emacs lets me do away with tiling mostly because it itself supports it in a way, namely C-x 2 and C-x 3. I can run all my shells and gdb's right inside Emacs. Nowadays I usually either have one fullscreened Emacs window, Firefox, 1 external terminal, and maybe LibreOffice open on my laptop. I don't mess around with moving them around and resizing them. For me, it's enough to simply have workspaces to manage all of them (I use C-M-[np] to switch back and forth through them, Caps Lock is remapped to Control).

It's true though that the benefits of tiling window managers isn't just the tiling itself, but often that they're programmable and configurable through plain text files. There's also the benefit of lower resource consumption if you run it bare.

As for what I actually use? Xfwm4 gets the job done.

<comment><USER3> I'll second using Emacs as the primary graphical shell. It shouldn't really be surprising that it's good for that task, since the interface is (or so it seems to me) heavily influenced by Genera's X interface. If Emacs let you display an external program such as Firefox in a buffer, I'd as well do away with Openbox and just run Emacs.

<comment><USER4> I wish use of something like Xembed was more pervasive. Being able to compose applications would be really nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Once you have started to use a tiling window manager (Awesome WM in my case), you can't go back, it's just a huge boost of productivity for developers - especially when you come from OS X where dragging/resizing windows is a real pain.

<comment><USER6> I've never worked in a situation where I could use a tiling window manager (OS X here), but I've always wondered how that's supposed to work when my normal workflow involves opening and closing a lot of windows. Especially terminal windows. I open throwaway terminal windows all the time, and then close them if I'm done with them, or keep them open behind my other windows if they have some information in them I need to reference later.

Often when I'm done working, I end up closing perhaps a dozen scratch terminal windows.

<comment><USER7> Tiling window manager users typically avoid transient windows in much the same way that modern browser users avoid transient browser windows.

For instance, my primary development workspace has four columns: three emacs and one terminal with tab support. I don't open/close new emacs windows or new terminal windows, in the same way that I don't open/close new browser windows: I just use tabs within a single window. Likewise, I use multiple open buffers within my emacs windows, and multiple tabs within my terminal windows. If I need a transient terminal, I switch to a different tab or add a new tab.

Opening/closing transient terminals is pure UX overhead, IMO.

<comment><USER8> Terminal multiplexers like screen and tmux are a nice alternative to tabbed terminals. They cut down on screen clutter (no need for tabs, scrollbars, etc.) and have the added bonus that they remain running in the background, even accessible over SSH.

(I accidentally killed my X session this morning; everything in tmux survived :) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really, really, really want to move to using a tiling window manager. Watching YouTube videos of people using them well, you can't help but think "Damn, they're really crazy efficient". But I can't find one that has good enough documentation that I can learn it on my own (and since nobody else at my office uses it, somebody has got to be first.)

I'd love to get into [http://i3wm.org/](http://i3wm.org/) but can't find anything to push me over the ledge, so I keep resigning myself to checking out projects like the one in OP and thinking "Wouldn't that be nice..."

<comment><USER10> I've been using them on and off, and the first thing I'd like to mention is that they're in no way magical -- both when it comes to using them (which is mostly knowing a few shortcuts and internalizing the layout system), but also in regard to how much they help you.

Sure, they certainly do _look_ snazzy, especially when coupled with the movie hacker-approved unified dark color scheme. New windows pop up and quickly assume their rightful space and everything just looks so darn tidy.

But for certain usage patterns, that doesn't get you a lot. Even if you're popping up disposable shell windows left and right, you might also do that within screen/tmux, where the window manager doesn't come into play at all (or have some drop-down quake-like console). Also, your running applications and especially their different configurations might not change that often, in which case you're really saving yourself some manual layout fiddling _once_. So a lot of people would perform pretty much the same with just alt-tab window cycling and virtual desktops (which seem orthogonal to the whole deal).

I mean, if you look at the _vast_ majority of screenshots, you don't even see that much work. The obligatory IRC client, fake-GUI music players and/or file managers and probably an editor with the configuration file or some minor coursework open. It's not exactly Scotty and his Mac Plus.

Having said that, I'd add my vote to i3wm, as it isn't as ideologically pure as some others (you still have window titles if you want them, and the layout remains somewhat manual). Plus a rather readable configuration format, even if the default configuration is seemingly intended to drive vi-users mad.

My alternative would be bspwm, the binary space partitioning wm. A lot more minimal, but the automatic layout algorithm is rather tractable and one certainly wouldn't be confused with too many options.

<comment><USER11> > I mean, if you look at the vast majority of screenshots, you don't even see > that much work. The obligatory IRC client, fake-GUI music players and/or > file managers and probably an editor with the configuration file or some > minor coursework open. It's not exactly Scotty and his Mac Plus.

Well, this applies to all WM screenshots ever, not just tiling window managers. The main problem with WM screenshots is that you want to show how it looks, show off some features, but my actual work is generally spread across many virtual desktops, each with just a few windows (mostly xterm)

<comment><USER10> Quite a lot of screenshots do cover more than one desktop, plus often a "clean" shot to show off the otherwise covered minimalistic and/or anime background pic.

I blame it more on the fact that many of the tiling wm crowd are quite young and don't do that much actual work with their machines, especially if they just switch to Linux because of other screenshots of said style.

Or just not being able to show e.g. proprietary code…

<comment><USER8> I'm "quite young" (26), although I don't know what you'd class as "actual work" (do Web development and PhD research count?).

To be honest I like using tiling WMs because they're _not_ magic, whizz-bang things. I could lay out my windows better with a stacking WM (eg. when badly- behaved apps make assumptions about their size and put buttons off the edge of the screen), but a tiling WM does just well enough that I _really don 't care_ about my window layout anymore. Whatever Xmonad does is usually fine.

Likewise, with a tiling window manager I _really don 't care_ about background pictures anymore. Before using tiling WMs I used to use chbg to cycle through a directory of images, and use (fake, then composited) transparency in terminals, etc. These days my machines boot straight into Xmonad with st and emacs open; my only "background" is a black screen for a couple of seconds while they start up.

Any screenshot I take would just advertise whatever fullscreen application I have open at the moment, along with a line of text at the top of the screen with a clock and counters for my unread email and failing tests.

<comment><USER10> > I'm "quite young" (26), although I don't know what you'd class as "actual > work" (do Web development and PhD research count?).

Certainly. It's always hard to judge age on the 'net, but looking at the relevant discussions on reddit or linux forums, you'll find an astonishingly uniform spread of applications, and if you find any code that's not the configuration of the window manager, it'll be some kind of programming 101 material. This, along with the "just installed Linux, this is my new awesome desktop" makes me a bit biased towards assuming a large quantity of teenagers -- also more likely to generally proactively show their neat desktops.

This doesn't mean that every tiling wm user is that way (I certainly am not), just like pinterest isn't a good indicator about the prevalence of refurbished palettes in American bedrooms...

I would say that you probably have more in common with corporate windows users who have their apps running fullscreen all the time, too and that way don't ever changed their backgroudn from Napa valley, than with the "unix ricers" who regularly apply patches to their minimal wms that leave large borders around their windows, so that their background is still evident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is the sort of thing I hope to see a lot more of from Rust. Things that would traditionally be done in C/C++ moving to a new language with modern features. I'm very hopeful this trend will continue.

<comment><USER13> The thing is, most languages can be used for writing a Window manager.

But since the alternatives to C and C++ kind of faded away from mainstream and they are anyway the UNIX system languages, most developers seldom look for alternatives.

With Rust, Go, D, Haskell, OCaml, .NET Native/Mono AOT, Java AOT compilers, hopefully developers will eventually realize that not everything needs to be coded in C or C++.

<comment><USER14> Most non-C languages also come with GC/managed runtime whether you want it or not. So for someone who don't want that Rust could be a fitting choice.

<comment><USER15> Last I checked the memory consumption of running xmonad (you know, written in Haskell) on my computer was a pittance; doesn't hog memory, and probably doesn't use enough memory to cause user-noticeable GC pauses.

Though if you're talking about applications in general, and not just WMs; yes, sure.

<comment><USER14> Yes it is more likely to be applicable to other apps other than WMs, but I also have integration in mind. So what if you want to write a WM like a library that can be used by whatever runtime a user may choose. Not sure that is a good idea but it sure would not be very portable if a GC must be carried inside the library. Memory consumption is not the only issue here.

<comment><USER15> If you were making a general point and not about WMs in particular, why didn't you say that to begin with?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There is a tutorial by the author which goes into more details: [https://kintaro.github.io/rust/window-manager-in- rust-01/](https://kintaro.github.io/rust/window-manager-in-rust-01/)

<comment><USER17> The first part is merely a rough setup. Tutorial is unfinished. At the moment I am writing my thesis, but I'll try to do a few parts over the holidays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My apologies if this is a really naive question, I don't really do this kind of low level systems programming. Do most projects of this sort not have tests, or are they just hard enough that they don't really pay off?

<comment><USER17> As for the xlib stuff, I can't really write tests for that. But I will write a more extensive test suite for the core components, especially the ones in src/core.rs

For the methods in window_manager.rs, they often depend on the window system, but that shouldn't be a problem as I could simply insert a dummy interface.

Tests will follow. Last weeks were just filled with thesis and preparations for my last exam. So I used the coding for relaxation and kinda omitted the tests. I know, I know...behaviour.

<comment><USER19> > As for the xlib stuff, I can't really write tests for that.

I do that by wrapping the C APIs into traits. I have some macros that generate both the proper implementations with ffi calls and mock implementations. Then I can write extensive tests for the high level binding's low level behavior using properly set up mocks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can you tell how much `unsafe` code you used? And if you did, for what purposes?

<comment><USER17> Except for 2 exceptions, only for interfacing with xlib, as the calls to rust- xlib involve raw pointers (because rust-xlib is just a plain c-binding wrapper around xlib).

The 2 exceptions are: loading of the config library. The config file is compiled to a dynamic lib at startup, and I need to read the symbol out of that library to access the configure function. The DynamicLibrary module is unfortunately unsafe. The second exception is in one of the default handler methods, managing the on-the-fly restart of the WM (akin to xmonad). This involves a call to execvp in the libc:: module, and therefore also unfortunately requiring an unsafe block (split into 2 unsafe block, for pointer handling and calling).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is it just me, or does Rust code always seem very clean and tidy? I haven't seen a Rust project yet where the code seemed "ugly".

It's such a pleasure to look at compared to C++ (though nested generics are still a pain).

<comment><USER22> I agree, with the exception of to_string() and as_slice() all over the place when dealing with a lot of text.

<comment><USER23> to_string() will still be a thing, but many uses of `as_slice()` should be fixed by using &foo instead of foo.as_slice() in many cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The actual code: [https://github.com/Kintaro/wtftw- core](https://github.com/Kintaro/wtftw-core)

</comment><comment><USER25> Don't miss the tutorial at the end of the github page either:

[https://kintaro.github.io/rust/window-manager-in- rust-01/](https://kintaro.github.io/rust/window-manager-in-rust-01/)

Potential trend - instead of learning a new language with Hello World or blog/chat app, it's now via tiling wm.

</comment><comment><USER26> It really leaves me shrugging my shoulders when I see titles like "such and such written in such and such language/framework". Like saying that writing a window manager in Rust (or whatever) is interesting just because it is in Rust.

Tell me, what does it bring to the table compared to other window managers ?

<comment><USER27> Writing a window manager in Rust is interesting precisely because it's written in Rust.

I wouldn't be surprised if this homebrewed WM didn't hold up in features or performance to alternatives like xmonad, dwm, Awesome, i3, etc.

However, the linked repo is an interesting way to showcase both a relatively new technology (Rust) and the innards of WMs, which most people don't look at very often. It gives non-Rust-users a glimpse into Rust's features and capabilities, and a glimpse at how simple (150 loc + 125 lines of config) a window manager can be.

I found it insightful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So clearly Rust is ready for tiling window managers. When will Rust be ready for the web (at least to the level of where Go is right now) ?

<comment><USER29> What makes you think that it isn't already?

<comment><USER28> Seems it's far from being mature enough to use in production - from a couple of sources including: [http://arewewebyet.com/](http://arewewebyet.com/)

<comment><USER30> What is it that makes writing an HTTP client so hard? It seems bizarre that a project like teepee could have been in active development for 8 months or more, and still not be anywhere near usable.

<comment><USER31> Well, [http://github.com/carllerche/curl- rust](http://github.com/carllerche/curl-rust) has been working great for me. Sure, it uses libcurl so it isn't pure Rust, but that doesn't make it not work :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This requires Xephyr, which is another window manager, running on top of X. What is the Rust part actually doing?

<comment><USER33> Xephyr isn't a window manager. It's an X display server that runs inside a window on another host X server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If anyone else was confused about where the rest of the code is, [https://github.com/Kintaro/wtftw-core](https://github.com/Kintaro/wtftw-core)

<comment><USER17> Author here. I am sorry about the confusion. It happened later in the project when I split it into 3 components (4 as soon as I add Wayland support). I should probably mention that in the Readme.

Thank you.

<comment><USER35> _Wayland support_

Wow, nice to see a tiling window manager working on that.

<comment><USER17> As soon as I figure out how to do that. But I need only minimal functionality, so I don't expect it to be _too_ difficult. I figured I should start with the Weston shell and figure it out from there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Say, which distro is that in the first screenshot?

<comment><USER37> The triangle logo is the logo of Arch Linux distribution.

<comment><USER36> I was being facetious. It's pretty clear they're running Arch; it says so several times in the image.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would you tweak in C to make it a nicer language? - <AUTHOR> If you could tweak C without adding huge new features (like OO or changing paradigm), what would your changes be?<p>examples: Zero initialized memory. Improved function pointer syntax. Remove '->' and replace with '.'. Array bounds checking. Standard inline assembly syntax. etc. etc. (There are probably a lot I haven't thought about) <comment><USER2> Some handy little things:

1\. Standard library support for safe arithmetic (easily capturing overflows, underflows, and so forth).

2\. Standard library support for threading and synchronization primitives.

3\. Mandated tail-call optimization through pragmas or perhaps just requiring it in the spec.

4\. Create explicit and differentiated arithmetic and logical shift left and shift right.

5\. Add a standard way of specifying arbitrarily-sized integers (with optimization for the common word sizes).

6\. Add destructuring operations.

7\. Add anonymous unions.

8\. Add switching on strings in switch statements.

9\. Add proper UTF8 support.

10\. Add a slab allocator to the standard library.

11\. Add regexes to the standard library (possible as a language feature).

~

Several of these (7, for example) are being addressed in C11 (if that ever comes out).

<comment><USER3> I'm confused by "if that ever comes out". C11 was released 3 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Make everyone use C99 standard integers for various data types so that people can stop trying to "detect" what type to use in a horrible autotools script.

</comment><comment><USER5> Most of my pain-points with C were solved with syntactic-sugar libraries like Cello ([http://libcello.org/](http://libcello.org/)).

</comment><comment><USER6> What are some other libraries, like libCello, that help with c in syntactic- sugary ways?

</comment><comment><USER7> I want generic programming like Rust.

</comment><comment><USER8> i would make it coffeescript like syntax and add in underscorejs functionality -_-

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably a legit macro system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Any ideas on how it should look? Perhaps there are good examples in non lisp languages which have good systems, though i haven't tried them to know which is good.

<comment><USER9> I don't have much experience with it but Rust's seems to be pretty good.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Spotify for Hackers: Run Node code to email new tracks on playlists - <AUTHOR> https://pipedream.com/@dylan/spotify-for-hackers-run-node-code-to-notify-me-when-a-playlist-i-follow-has-new-music-p_brCQqr/readme <comment><AUTHOR> Hi y'all, I'm a founder and engineer at Pipedream, and I wanted to share this workflow I wrote to automate a personal problem I had and show off our tool.

Spotify no longer notifies you when a playlist you follow adds new music, so I wrote a little Node.js code to list all the playlists in my library owned by others, and checks them for new tracks once an hour.

The code for diffing tracks is a little complex, but Pipedream makes it easy to connect my Spotify account and run Node code that uses the OAuth Bearer token tied to my OAuth grant. It hosts the code and runs the job on a schedule, giving me inline observability, emails me on errors, built-in state via the this.$checkpoint variable, etc.

Would love feedback on the workflow and the product. Pipedream is still a young product, so we'd love to know what we can improve. Thanks!</comment>


Catch the (Adobe) Wave - <AUTHOR> http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wave/ <comment><USER2> Not that google owns the 'wave' label, but with more than a few months of knowing Google is making a run for a big 'wave', wouldn't you have thought adobe would have gone for a new name (though they obviously would have already had the wave name before google was public with it).

As far as desktop app for notifications when friends make status updates, i don't find it really compelling.</comment>


Huawei is developing an alternative to Google Maps - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/huawei-develops-google-maps-alternative-2019-8 <comment><USER2> > So far, US travel website aggregator Booking Holdings and Russian internet > giant Yandex have partnered with Huawei on the map service.

Sounds like it could be viable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Q: How did the US companies lose their Chinese markets?

A: Slowly at first, then all at once.

It's always easier to pay a little for an established service, than to go to the angst and costs of setting it up for yourself. On the other hand, once you find you _do_ need to set it up for yourself, then you never ever need to buy that service again.

<comment><USER4> They had no Chinese markets to begin with. Joint ventures majority owned by Chinese entity was another story, those worked great, until they didnt because Chinese partner learned all he needed and decided to branch out/strike on his own.

<comment><USER3> For some items, yes.

On the other hand, most Asian companies (includes Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc) are quite happy to use American software such as Google's Android OS and Apps because that costs them very little, and they don't have to go to the hassle and costs of producing it themselves.

Google gains because any income from Android and its Apps is very welcome.

America gains because that income is also received. Apart from any American sales to Asia resulting from Google's ads, such as various luxury brands, Hollywood movies, iPhones, etc.

Now when any Asian country is not permitted to use Google's Android, sure it costs them because they now have to expend effort and money to produce the equivalent to Android. But to offset that, they now get all the income from the Apps and sales of goods that America used to sell.

Not only that, but the Chinese/Japanese/whatever markets are taken over by Asian companies rather than American companies and American companies get squeezed out of Asia.

America too often has short-term or zero-sum thinking. Asia usually has long- term or win-win thinking. It beggars belief that Trump,etc complain that China isn't buying enough stuff while they refuse to sell them the stuff that China wants to buy. SMH.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I'm rejecting your email attachment - <AUTHOR> http://www.fsf.org/news/why-im-rejecting-your-email-attachment

<comment><USER2> I don't want to sound like an ass or ungrateful or anything, but the FSF needs to wise up. People won't switch until the alternative is _a lot_ better than what they currently have. Why would a normal person care about the file format of an attachment? Hell, how many people even _know_ the format of the files they are working with? (I mean the extensions, not the file layout or anything) They just care about being able to open it. They have a raft of better shit to be doing and that's how it should be.

tl;dr: Make OpenOffice 10x better than Office and you won't have to cajole people to switch. Don't do that and we'll ignore you like we've been doing.

<comment><USER3> This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. For those of us who live in caves, this works, but for those of us who participate in the real world, it doesn't. It's like a hippie telling me to _only_ buy locally grown organic produce and boycot the rest, when it's cheaper and I really don't give a shit.

You're completely right. The alternatives are _garbage_. OpenOffice is an absolute joke. My dad sent me this attachment, asking for some help doing an animation. Let's compare the OpenOffice version, to the Keynote version.

Keynote: <http://grab.by/3r23> OpenOffice: <http://grab.by/3r25>

Until the app that I use to deal with these open formats is _equivalent_ or better than MS Office or Keynote, I'm going to use it. I could care less what format the document comes in... I've never had an issue opening something. I worked out the issue my dad had in Keynote (the slide he needed help with was not the screenshot, heh)

The FSF guys have never provided alternative solutions that actually work, and yes, until then, I'm going to ignore their stupid bullshit.

<comment><USER4> You know what's even more annoying? The pool of talented developers working on _two_ office suites for Linux! So, rather than everybody working on an MS Office killer, we have crappy OpenOffice and an even craffier KOffice both competing against each other for the title of who's crappiest. Grr!

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the world _would_ be a much better place if everyone did exactly what I told them to.

For me, anyway...

<comment><USER4> Heh, sometimes I think that the only thing OSS really needs for mainstream success is a dictator ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow. Starts to sound like Ford's freedom of color choice for his cars.

      By rejecting all files created in Microsoft Office and Apple iWork,
      you can send a strong message to your friends, colleagues and
      businesses that you do not support the actions of these companies.

Intersting. iWork lets me export document in PDF, RTF and plain text. I guess that does not count, and I am going to burn in hell anyway, just because I used something else than OO?

      By rejecting these files, you can open a friendly dialog with the
      person, and ask them to support a free society by using a free
      format like OpenDocument.

I guess one will have more chances to look like moron than "open a friendly dialog". And I still think that freedom means I can choose any tool and format i like, not the ones that FSF tells me to.

<comment> loup-vaillant (1) The only way for you to burn in hell will be to share the _default_ export format of Office and iWork. Don't tell me you didn't understand that, I won't believe you.

(2) Yes, that's makes you look like a moron. No, freedom doesn't mean that. If you want to maximize _your_ (immediate) freedom, then I understand. If you also want to be ethical and stop at the freedom of others, then you should restrict yourself to open formats.

<comment><USER6> 1) It says nothing about _default_. Let me quote again:

      all files created in Microsoft Office and Apple iWork

2) How about others being ethical and not telling me what format to use?

<comment> loup-vaillant 1) You are understanding the letter, not the spirit. Open format for which there exists a free software implementation are OK no matter what (short of patents). That includes PDF, RTF, and plain text.

2) So you want total freedom, for yourself. Carried to it's ultimate conclusion, your total freedom can have me enslaved, should you decide so. More reasonably, your freedom to smoke oppose my freedom to breathe. And here, your freedom to use proprietary formats and software oppose my freedom to _not_ use them.

There is no way around that. Most of the time, the larger my freedom, the smaller the rest of the world's. Some compromises are just better than others at maximizing (or sharing) total freedom.

<comment><USER7> 1) Since when was PDF an open, friendly format. Didn't Adobe go after MS when they tried to add PDF export to Word 2007?

2) His freedom to use any format he likes does not impact on your freedom not to use those formats. You are free to ignore the documents he creates.

If I decide to invent my own language and speak only in that, that does not impact your freedom not to learn my language.

(I'm not sure the analogies are making these arguments any clearer)

<comment> loup-vaillant (1) Whoops, bad example. I suppose this is because of patents? (EDIT: this is a genuine question, I really don't know)

(2) In that case, I have limited options: either I ignore the document, or I keep my (more important) freedom. If you sent me an open format, I could have my cake and eat it too, which ultimately results in more freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I mostly share Google docs these days.. the user can download it in any format he likes, if we he wishes to download it at all.

.odf may not win over .docx, but in the long run, both will lose to the cloud.

On a related note, I hope we eventually have some sort of cloud-transfer legislation, that makes it easy for people to move all their docs from Google to say, Zoho without any hassles.. this would foster more innovation in the online office suite space

<comment> loup-vaillant > .odf may not win over .docx, but in the long run, both will lose to the > cloud.

That would be a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. And I mean every single word.

The number one reason why proprietary formats are bad is because they don't give you full control of your data. Documents in the cloud give you even less control, and no guarantee. No amount of legislation will prevent bad things from happening (like, semantic analysis of your documents).

The cloud as we know it should die. Trust me, I am not the extremist, here. Or better, don't trust me. Just listen to the arguments (one sided and very well said): [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/ISOC-NY- Moglen-20...](http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2010/ISOC-NY-Moglen-2010/) (video, audio and transcript).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do not send me an frigging OpenDocument! Send me a link to a web page. If it's not on the web, paste the text into the email message. If it's not text, send me a gif/jpg/png. If it doesn't fit in any of those formats, I don't want it. And if it's a deck of slides, just fuck off already!

<comment><USER10> 'And if it's a PDF, you can go to hell!'

I get what you are saying, and there are a lot of good reasons to believe in using the basic file formats (read: _old_ formats, not _better_ formats), but I think that this is a poor way of looking at the spreading of information.

While a .txt file is accessible anywhere, it is certainly not always more readable. Just because someone _could_ write their thoughts out in a linear fashion, doesn't mean they should. Slide decks are great, and they are sometimes the best option for presenting vital information to a large group of people.

There are good reasons for wanting very basic encodings of thought, but there are also very good reasons to make things more complex (internally) to make them more simple (externally).

Also, OpenDocument is hard to use, as is OpenOffice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> ODF or not, no "open" office document format is going to catch on until everybody can cheaply and painlessly open them. That means a variety of editing suites and viewers installed by default or trivially installable across every major PC and mobile platform. Let's face it: OO.o isn't for everybody, it isn't a quick install, and you are not going to convince a majority of people to use it. There needs to be other major alternatives (that's the point of the "open", right?) catered to all devices/OSes.

To that end, I don't think you _can_ create an office document format that is wholly divorced from the client that reads, views, and writes it. Even if I believed that you could agree on a perfectly future-proof and extensible data format, you would need a whole suite of tests available so that clients could test that they are rendering them to the screen and print {pixel|point}-perfectly. The closest analogue we have for this scenario is HTML, and look how imperfect the browser space still is; and browsers don't even need to provide editing functionality for what they are rendering.

<comment> loup-vaillant People should really learn to use computers. At least a little. They should at least be able to painlessly install popular programs. Before they do, no amount of free software will save them.

We can't dumb down free software to the point it demands absolutely no effort to install (you need at least a few clicks). So we have to teach.

<comment><USER7> > We can't dumb down free software to the point it demands absolutely no > effort to install (you need at least a few clicks).

Why not? People don't want to learn how to install software. They want to do their jobs. Apple (with the App Store) and Google (with Chrome) understand that.

<comment> loup-vaillant Because that would mean "installed by default". And until such software is widespread on the targeted platform, that won't happen.

If the (very low) level of pain of the Apple store is low enough for you, then yes, that's definitely possible. We just need a "Free Software Store". The repository system found in Linux distributions is very close (or even on spot, depending on the UI wrapper). Maybe such a system would be desirable on Windows. That could ease the transition to fully fledged Linux systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> in principle there are good ideas behind this proposed "only accept Open Document file formats idea", wouldn't it be constructive for this article to mention that microsoft word actually supports that format? (at least according to wikipedia).

Personally all my writing etc for anything nontrivial is via latex, a file format which happily enough is human readable (and much moreso than word or odf or whatever), and I can be reasonably confident that if i want to regenerate any documents i have in 20+ years, these files will likely be still machine readable barring cosmic radiation flipping bits or computers switching from binary to ternary representations etc.

In all seriousness though, for all but the simplest of documents, theres a lot of ways that meaning formatting/data can be lost when two different word processors are respectively creating and reading a document file, and thats even ignoring how with a lot of these programs the formatting for a document will be rejiggered if these two computer have different default printers!!

<comment><USER13> I use latex for pretty much all documents too, including presentations. Everyone can open PDFs, and they print nicely. However, I have not been able to explain why I prefer latex to anyone so far. People just see this weird format that requires an extra step to get a "proper-looking" document, and claim not to see the difference in typography between LaTeX and Word. And no, I don't go around preaching latex to word users - they ask me first :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me when I was doing a project for a $major_pharmaceutical_company and provided them with the deployment docs for my software as a plain text file. They said, "we can't read this" and insisted that I give them a .doc file. (cut, paste, "save as .doc", and everyone is happy. wtf?)

This sort of behavior is harmful (and dumb), so I am glad the FSF is calling it out.

<comment> loup-vaillant Let me guess: you used UNIX line endings, right? Or were your text files not named "*.txt"? Anyway people should learn to use their computers, at least a little. If they don't, even free software won't really gain them any freedom.

<comment><USER5> I believe they didn't know what program to use to edit .txt files.

Yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _OpenDocument is available now, as is free software such as OpenOffice.org that allows anyone to create OpenDocument files at no cost._

OpenOffice may be free, but it certainly comes at a cost. For starters: the cost of learning a new UI. And the cost of dealing with compatibility issues while most other people are still using Office.

For my own needs, OpenOffice is fine. But for those who write a lot more documents, and have more invested in Office, the time cost alone is likely to outweigh the price difference.

</comment><comment><USER15> And in other news - geeks with beards lose clients.

</comment><comment><USER16> The FSF: sinking into irrelevance, one press release at a time.

</comment><comment><USER17> I like this idea, to get business to take it seriously it would be nice to attach along with it an academic study on worker productivity in OpenOffice versus MS Office.</comment>


Free Coronavirus Book For Kids – Reassuring children around the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.mindheart.co/descargables <comment><USER2> This is really cute and appropriately written for preschoolers. Thanks for sharing.</comment>